[HCARC] Fwd: [CTDXCC] ARRL Technician Permissions now a RM proposal RM-11828
Fred
cw4evr at hctc.net
Fri Mar 15 10:15:47 EDT 2019
I tend to disagree on some of the points.I don’t remember back in 1957
when I got my novice, whether there were 15 or 25 questions for the
entrance class of license, but do remember one of the questions.“What is
a grid dip meter used for?”One of the answers was “To dip ice cream at
field day.”Technical? Duh.Anyway we must remember the purpose of the
amateur service is to provide a group of trained operators for an
emergency.This is the only reason we exist at all. Most of the things I
hear listening on the hf bands is chasing dx and contesting.Not ECOMM.On
the other hand you have to follow the money.Remember when ARRL proposed
dropping the code requirement?In Colorado, a ballot was sent to every
ham in the rocky mountain division was sent a ballot to vote yes or no
to eliminate the code, and the votes were counted and overwhelmingly the
answer was no.Our director proceeded to HQ and voted yes.A lot of hams
resigned from ARRL over this.The action however got a lot more hams into
the hobby, thereby selling more equipment.More money!I suppose as us old
dinosaurs who just love our J-38’s die off we will see equipment start
coming out with no key jack at all.Some of the HF rigs already put the
1/8 inch key jack on the back panel where it is not easy to use.But that
will not make me resign from ARRL. No way! We see a lot of activity for
MESH networks, what would be wrong with a nationwide one on HF?But
please put it in the SSB sections of the bands, and not screw up anymore
of my favorites!
Fred/w0lpd
On 3/15/2019 12:33 AM, Kerry wrote:
> Don and everyone,
>
> The ARRL is determined to destroy amateur radio. Every year it seems
> that new hams have less technical knowledge, less sense of the
> traditions of ham radio and less understanding of why our regulations
> are what they are. The ARRL's major goal seems to be to increase the
> number of so called hams no matter what the cost. I remember when the
> justification of ham radio included technical things like radio
> propagation studies, technical improvements to comm equipment,
> providing an experienced pool of technical and comm people for the
> nation. There is some of these still going on but when was the last
> time you heard about them? It seems all we hear about now is EMCOM
> for which the ARRL provides training, etc. Every thing the ARRL
> pushes seems to be for EMCOM. E-mail doesn't belong on the ham bands
> - it is not amateur! The way to get more techs licensed is to give
> them better HF privileges - but lets use HF NVIS on the low bands for
> EMCOM as the excuse. My opinion is EMCOM is a scam and is invoked by
> ARRL to make ham radio more attractive to new hams to increase the
> number of hams.
>
> My view of organizations is that the original people who lead the
> organization truly believe in what the organization does. By the 3rd
> generation or so, the leaders just want to be in charge of something
> and don't care what the organization is. The last ARRL president I
> had any respect for was W4KFC many years ago. When I first joined the
> ARRL the only paid officer was the secretary. Probably the correct
> title. His main job seemed to be do what needed to be done for the
> president, board and league to function. Then we had an executive
> vice president and then a CEO. It seem that by the time it was CEO,
> the president and board were superfluous.
>
> Its not my league any more. You younger guys need to decide what you
> want ham radio to be and act accordingly.
>
> Kerry. K5KS
>
> On 3/14/2019 11:03 AM, Don Murray via HCARC wrote:
>> Hello all...
>>
>> Ted, N9NB,
>>
>> https://www.google.com/search?q=ted+rappaport&oq=ted+rappaport&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.12577j1j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> From: ctdxcc at lists.kkn.net
>> Reply-to: tsrwvcomm
>> To: adam@
>> Cc: k5na@, ctdxcc at lists.kkn.net
>> Sent: 3/14/2019 10:20:54 AM Central Standard Time
>> Subject: Re: [CTDXCC] ARRL Technician Permissions now a RM proposal
>> RM-11828
>>
>> The impetus for this is simple:
>> The desire for ARRL to add 375,000 new illegal Pactor stations to use
>> free secure email in the US HF bands by relatively untrained
>> individuals. More attacks on the safety of our spectrum, our hobby,
>> and our country.
>>
>> https://www.kb6nu.com/arrls-latest-push-wide-band-digital-arpa/
>> https://forums.qrz.com/index.php?threads/the-big-tent-of-amateur-radio-lets-find-a-better-way.612753/
>>
>> Again, we are forced to write comments to the FCC against this NPRM
>> RM-11828, and to lobby your elected congressional officials to ignore
>> and rebuke the FCC for considering this RM and RM-11708/NPRM 16-239
>> without first fixing and enforcing its own rules in 95-2106 and 13-1918.
>>
>> Urge congress to tell the FCC to not act on this RM-11828 or NPRM
>> 16-239, since the FCC has not properly safeguarded the airways such
>> that hams may self police themselves to ensure proper use of amateur
>> radio. There are so many digital modes now being developed and used
>> by Winlink and ARSFI that are not able to be intercepted by others
>> over the air, or even by the relay stations, themselves, and this
>> RM-11828 was written when Chris Imlay , the former ARRL lawyer, was
>> running the legal activities of ARRL.
>>
>> This NPRM-11828 supports illegal and improper use of the amateur
>> spectrum. Similar to NPRM 16-239, RM-11708.
>>
>> Congress must hear from you!
>>
>> So must ARRL elected officials and the FCC public comments.
>> We are still suffering from the effects of a dysfunctional ARRL board
>> with this NPRM, before 5 new ARRL officers were voted in this year.
>>
>> We must be very vocal at Congress!
>>
>> 73, ted N9NB
>> Sent from smartphone, please excuse typos
>> On Mar 14, 2019, at 9:19 AM, Adam Bartlett <adam@> wrote:
>>
>>
>> The league is pushing it - it's to allow techs to operate with NVIS
>> style setups for Emcomm, their usual reasoning these days and 15 for
>> some reason just came along for the ride.
>> I think if they were going to push this, they should push a bit more
>> knowledge on HF into the technician pool and possibly limit them to
>> narrow bandwidth digital modes, giving them full permission to run
>> PACTOR/Winlink modes is just asking for it. If a technician wants to
>> jump in and have a go at PSK31 or FT8 then great, those modes are
>> simple to use and live in well known spots. I also commented that
>> maybe the 40m permissions should be explicitly limited to daytime
>> hours only if the goal there is Emcomm/NVIS, not DX.
>> 73 adam
>> On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 7:35 AM Richard King <k5na> wrote:
>> Interesting information Adam. Thanks for posting this.
>> First, 80, 40, and 15 meters are the same bands that holders of the
>> old novice license use to have access to. So someone is thinking
>> about that license parameters as a guide or is using the same
>> original reasons for choosing those bands for newbies.
>> What I don't understand is why RM-11828 would not allow CW to be
>> operated on those same bands by Technician licensees. If that mode
>> and band are allowed to these licensees, then some of them would take
>> advantage of CW to learn and extend their skills.
>> I haven't actually looked at RM-11828 yet and wont have time today.
>> Does anyone know who is promoting this rule change?
>> 73, Richard - K5NA
>> 73, Richard - K5NA
>> On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 3:18 AM Adam Bartlett <adam@> wrote:
>> I just noticed that the FCC has put up a rule making proposal on
>> granting technician level licensees phone & digital in the HF bands
>> (80/40/15 for those keeping track at home), the number is RM-11828 if
>> you're interested in laying out comments for them to read/ignore or
>> for the crew in Newington to promote/ridicule. I know some folks
>> here may have an interest in the outcome of that matter on both sides
>> of the fence.
>> 73 de N5YHF_______________________________________________
>> CTDXCC mailing list
>> CTDXCC at lists.kkn.net
>> https://lists.kkn.net/mailman/listinfo/ctdxcc
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> CTDXCC mailing list
>> CTDXCC at lists.kkn.net
>> https://lists.kkn.net/mailman/listinfo/ctdxcc
>> _______________________________________________
>> CTDXCC mailing list
>> CTDXCC at lists.kkn.net
>> https://lists.kkn.net/mailman/listinfo/ctdxcc
>> ______________________________________________________________
>> HCARC mailing list
>> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/hcarc
>> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
>> Post: mailto:HCARC at mailman.qth.net
>>
>> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
>> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
> ______________________________________________________________
> HCARC mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/hcarc
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:HCARC at mailman.qth.net
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
More information about the HCARC
mailing list